Talk:Finite verb

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Linguistics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Why does the definition of finite verb in the first sentence include person as a defining characteristic? By definition, finite seems to concern tense. Most IE languages, among others, also happen to have person/number features for finite verbs, but this does not seem to me to be a defining characteristic. --jonsafari 22:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with and wish to elaborate on Jonsafari's objection. The definition unwitting centres on features of certain languages, namely those that inflect verbs in a certain way; whereas the notion of finititude is more general. What we need instead is a functional definition of finite verb.

To give a concrete example: Chinese does not inflect verbs for tense, person, etc.; yet we would all still feel comfortable saying that Chinese uses finite verbs and (with a suitable grasp of vocabulary) would experience no difficulties identifying finite verbs in a Chinese text.

--Philopedia 22:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "no person" ("unlimited by subject") definition of non-finite forms (and, by opposition, the "with person" definition of finite forms) is used by many linguists — I think because it fits what are defined as infinitives/participles/gerunds in most "important" languages (for Westerners), especially Latin and Greek. But it does not fit, for example, Portuguese/Galician or Sardinian so-called "conjugated" infinitives, which some have even argued to be finite forms (which to me sounds ridiculous) merely because they don't fit that pre-made "no person" definition of infinitives (which was chosen to accomodate/model the infinitives of other Western languages). The "no tense" definition of non-finite forms (which means "no tense/aspect" in Western languages where the tense/aspect distinction is morphologically blurred) wouldn't fit Latin, nor even English, so most traditional Western linguists wouldn't accept it. Certainly, "finite" as used by traditional linguists is not (at least primarily) concerned with tense.

My own personal opinion on the matter is that what really differentiates what traditionally have been labelled "finite" from "non-finite" forms is not what the traditional definition of "non-finite = no person" says, and neither the fact of being able/unable to express whatever other inflectional category like tense, aspect or voice, since as you mention, all this is something that varies greatly from language to language and so any definition based on them would be "language-biassed" (one can find languages where these inflectional categories are expressed in both finite and non-finite forms: person in Portuguese, either the subject through inflections: amarmos "our loving", the object through clitics: amá-la "to love her", or both combined: amarmo-la "our loving her"; tense/aspect in Latin: audītūrus esse "to be going to hear", or in English: to have done; voice in English: to be loved, or in Latin: amārī; etc.). But the fact that the finite forms can "predicate" (they can be the verbal nucleus of a clause/sentence), while the non-finite forms cannot (they function as nouns, adjectives or adverbs, but not as "real" –predicating– verbs). For example, compare the clauses you go/went to the cinema, where the finite verbal forms go and went are used to "say something" (predicate) about "someone/something" (the subject), with the mere phrases to go to/your going to the cinema, where the non-finite verbal forms to go (without a defined subject, like Portuguese ir) and (your) going (with a defined subject, you, expressed in English non-finite forms not inflectionally but by means of a possessive: your, while in Portuguese it could be expressed as an inflection in the infinitive itself: [tu] ires), are not "saying something about someone/something" (what "real verbs" do), but merely "naming/identifying/referencing" something (what "nouns" do), in this case "naming" an event. But, as I said, this is just my own opinion. Uaxuctum 23:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This notion does not seem to hold for some of the "important" languages as well. For example, a Latin sentence like "Una salus victis: nullam sperare salutem." (literally something like: "One good for the conquered: to hope for no good [any more].") contains no finite verb in any sense but quite clearly "says something about someone". We would translate it with a finite verb like "One good remains for the conquered..." --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The definition says "A finite verb is a form of a verb that has a subject (expressed or implied) and can function as the root of an independent clause". A citation is needed for this definition. Also the word "root" is a technical term that needs a link or further definition. An introduction should be as far as possible in simple language. And is it necessary to add "independent" here? Kanjuzi (talk) 08:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A citation is also needed for "Verbs were originally said to be finite if their form limited the possible person and number of the subject", since this is not mentioned in the body of the article. Kanjuzi (talk) 08:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intrinsic need for citations. I'm interested in definitions and explanations that evince internal logic and practical external application. I consider the former to be lacking in this article and the latter therefore to be impossible. Having said that, I'm unprepared to offer an unassailable definition for finite verb. I do, in fact, subscribe to my own definition that feels analytically right for me, but I'm not comfortable sharing it at the moment as there are some ancillary terms that need further scrutiny.

One hint: I'm loath to characterize a word in terms of what it's not, i.e., "A finite verb is the antithesis of a nonfinite verb" doesn't cut it for me (definitionally speaking) despite how it provides a shorthand basis for reference. Furthermore, I wholeheartedly disagree with some of this Talk Page's previous observations that insist on applying the definitional concept of finite to languages other than English. There simply are too many vagaries and not enough corollaries across the world's spectrum of languages to try to analogize. In this English language article, I'd be satisfied with a definition such as, "(In the English language) A finite verb is a verb that..." I challenge the efficacy of asserting that it's a form of a verb. Gerunds, participles, and infinitives are "forms" of verbs. In my book, a finite verb is a verb. Kent Dominic 03:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent Dominic (talk • contribs)

A few weeks ago I put some notes on the talk page of non-finite verb which are relevant here too. These two articles need to be edited in parallel. --Doric Loon (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doric, I challenge your contention that most linguists would view am going as a single verb. It is true that am going is a single periphrastic form that expresses present tense and progressive aspect, but it consists of two words, each of which is a verb. We know that we are dealing with two separate words because we can split them with an adverb, e.g. I am certainly not going to accept that claim. I will now revert your edits. If you can back up your claim with more than one well-established source, then we should seek a compromise. --Tjo3ya (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mon fre're et moi, nous quittons la maison de bonne heur parce que — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.190.4.154 (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In "this sentence is illustrating...", "illustrating" is marked as a non-finite. However, this is contradictory to an example given by the Cambridge dictionary: She was waiting in the room, where "was waiting" is marked as finite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent-Tong-MO (talk • contribs) 05:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The cited reference is identified under a Finite and non-finite verbs heading, where "this sentence is illustrating..." qualifies as what Cambridge terms as a finite verb form. I suppose we should credit Cambridge with good linguistic instincts but semantic equivocation. Instead of terming "this sentence is illustrating..." a finite verb form, I would have termed it a finite verb phrase. Incidentally, I recommend shunning any references to a "main verb," which is an outmoded and casual term either for a finite verb (i.e. absent a verbal complement; hence the only predicate verb within its clause), for an infinitive that complements a finite verb, or for a participle that complements a finite verb, depending on the clause. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article's lead sentence, currently formulated as "A finite verb is a form of a verb that has a subject (expressed or implied)," has a hard time justifying how "form of a verb" is a better articulation than just plain "verb." Also, the sentence has difficulty reconciling how a verb has a subject. The concepts are apropos; the semantics are in need of emendment. Sorry for not making the adjustments myself. I'm just sayin'. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]